investopedia_article

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it returns metadata and body paragraphs, targets public pages, accepts several URL shapes, and returns a 400 for unsupported page types. It could add more detail on response format or rate limiting, but the core behaviors are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the action and return summary, and the longer list of article-template variants is directly relevant to selecting correct URLs. It has no filler, but the first sentence is somewhat long and list-heavy, so it is not as tight as the best one-line definitions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it states exactly what content is returned, enumerates accepted page types and URL patterns, and explains the error behavior for excluded pages. An agent has enough information to select the tool, construct input, and understand the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single `url` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond that by defining valid page-type categories and concrete URL patterns (/terms/..., /articles/..., /ask/answers/...), which helps the agent construct a valid URL even without opening the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get Investopedia article content,' and enumerates which page types the tool covers (news stories, dictionary terms, explainers, Q&A pages, product roundups). It also distinguishes what it is not for by stating that section listing pages and author profiles are rejected, which separates it from sibling tools like investopedia_sections and investopedia_author.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when this tool applies (article-template pages, with URL pattern examples) and when it should not be used (section listing and author profile pages are rejected). It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to switch to, relying on a runtime 400 message to identify them, so it falls just short of full alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.